|
Poster:
|
HektorT |
Date:
|
October 26, 2011 05:07:10am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: renewal question |
@bilbarstad: The renewal window is just one year.
"The renewal had to occur during the calendar year following the year of the 27th anniversary of the start date of the first term".
So for this to be valid, it should have been registered before February 24,1966. This looks to be one day late.
If the year in the notice does not correspond to the year in the registration, then the January 1 - December 31 calendar year might apply, but not if the notice says 1938
This post was modified by HektorT on 2011-10-26 12:07:10
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
October 26, 2011 07:31:24am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: renewal question |
If I understand correctly, you're saying that renewal isn't based on the year in notice alone, but on the full date on the original registration when the years coincide. I've just been using the recipe Video-Cellar posted
here in judging validity of renewals.
|
Poster:
|
HektorT |
Date:
|
October 27, 2011 10:42:50am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: renewal question |
@billbarstad: Yes, the renewal window is during the 27th year after the registration, beginning on the 27th anniversary of the initial registration. So if it is one year then it would end one day before the 28th anniversary. VideoCellar's text also says anniversary.
I'm not sure what the exact dates are in the case of the notice predating the registration
|
Poster:
|
HektorT |
Date:
|
October 29, 2011 04:35:19am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: renewal question |
@bilbarstad:
For the film in question, since it is © 24Feb38
The pre-1950 rule applies, to copyrightdata does agree (i like that site a lot!).
I think it was videocellar's post that is confusing as it refers to year in notice. Maybe he is trying to say that in the case that the notice year is active (like when the notice predates actual registration), then the calendar year is valid.
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
October 29, 2011 05:56:56am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: renewal question |
According to their chart, the start date for the renewal period is 24-Feb-65 and the end date is 24-Feb-66. So the movie wouldn't be PD, since it was renewed on the last day of the renewal window.
|
Poster:
|
HektorT |
Date:
|
October 29, 2011 07:17:12am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: renewal question |
Oh, didn't understand what you were saying. OK, I would agree with that then. I always go with what they say on that site as my most reliable authority.
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
October 29, 2011 08:06:31am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: renewal question |
What you wrote initially made more sense to me in that the renewal period would be 365 days, or 1 year. The chart also ignores the requirements of the transitional year 1950 as well as the case where the year in notice is different than the year of registration. Oh well, I hope copyrightdata.com is right, at least in what in does cover.
This post was modified by billbarstad on 2011-10-29 15:06:31
|
Poster:
|
billbarstad |
Date:
|
October 27, 2011 10:49:46am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: renewal question |
Yeah. I was stuck on the whole "in notice' idea.
TVNews
OpenLibrary
